Analysis | When Democrats fund Republicans to win elections
Spending money on the opposing party generally seems counter- productive. But some Democrats have bet on helping elect candidates in the Republican primaries so right-wing and Holocaust deniers of the 2020 presidential election that they think it will be easier to beat them in the mid-term elections. November term.
The bet of the Democrats to have supported far-right Republican candidates to win more easily on November 8 turns out to be risky.
Now that the Republican primaries are finally over and that all the candidates of this party have been selected for the November elections, we can see two things.
First, that according to Daniel Dale, a skilled compiler of the lies and falsehoods of politicians on CNN, of the 35 candidates running for a senator's seat, more than half of them still believe that the 2020 presidential election was faked. The same goes for almost two out of three candidates for governorships. As well as for nearly half of the Republican aspirants to the post of Secretary of State, a seat which notably oversees the elections.
Second, among some races, Democratic spending to promote far-right Republican candidacies appears to have paid off.
The latest example, that of Don Bolduc, a Trumpist Republican from New Hampshire. During the primaries, a political action committee (a PAC) overseen by Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, pumped just over $3 million into the campaign of Don Bolduc, a retired general, hoping to win him over a more moderate candidate, Chuck Morse. Last week, the candidate Bolduc became the one who will seek the seat of senator on November 8. The Democrats are already rubbing their hands, convinced that he will lose to their outgoing Senator Maggie Hassan.
Republican primary candidate for a Senate seat Don Bolduc claimed the 2020 election was stolen.
Robert Burns, obscure Republican candidate from New Hampshire without much funding from campaign, found himself at the center of a $100,000 campaign launched by Democrats Serve. The goal was to have him elected candidate in the Republican primary so that the Democratic representative Ann Kuster would be easily re-elected against a candidate who was necessarily too extreme.
In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, who once compared gun control to policies under Nazi Germany and also shared a photo saying Roe vs. Wade was worse than the Holocaust , absolutely wanted to obtain the candidature to become governor of the State. Too much to the far right of the right, some Republicans nevertheless believed that he would have no chance of being elected in November.
Doug Mastriano is one of the candidates dubbed by Donald Trump
In Maryland, QAnon conspiracy fanatic Dan Cox ran for the Republican nomination to run for governor to replace moderate Republican Larry Hogan. He also preferred Kelly Schulz, who was more likely to be elected in November in this rather centrist state.
Finally, Darren Bailey, a rural elected State of Illinois, an anti-abortionist who once campaigned for the city of Chicago to be removed from the state, has entered the race for governor of Illinois. Without much luck or funding, his hopes were pretty dim.
Darren Bailey, local elected official who ran in the Republican primary to try to win the Republican nomination for governor of the 'Illinois.
Yet these four candidates have three remarkable things in common: they are Trumpists who support the false theory of the stolen election, they benefited from millions of campaign dollars paid by Democrats, and they were ultimately chosen by the Republican supporters.
In total, the Democrats would have interfered in at least 13 races at different levels of power. According to the Washington Post, it would be more than 50 million dollars that would have been spent by various Democratic groups in order to help Republican candidates extreme and, according to them, without much chance of success on the 8 next November.
It's hard to know how much Democratic investment is in the final selection of the more extreme candidates, but it demonstrates how polarization leads some politicians to adopt these sorts of rather bizarre and, let's face it, very risky tactics.
The tactic failed, however, in the state of Colorado, where the Democratic Colorado PAC group injected no less than $4 million in part to attack Senate candidate Joe O'Dea, a Republican who supported elements of the presidential program. x27;Joe Biden infrastructure. Risky anti-psychology that ended in… O'Dea being nominated by the Republicans. Which makes him a much more threatening candidate for the incumbent Democrat in this blue state.
Same thing in California, where Democrats had given a financial boost to Chris Mathys, a 2020 election denier against David Valadao, who voted to impeach Trump in 2021. Valadao was chosen by Republican voters.
Among the Democrats who do not dare to openly criticize this tactic is, among others, Vice President Kamala Harris. Asked about strategy, she dodged the question several times by replying that she didn't tell other Democrats how to campaign.
The end justifies the means to win the midterm elections, seems to be saying Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.< /p>
On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, recently declared that political decisions are made with a view to our victory in the elections. We believe the contrast between Democrats and Republicans as they currently are is so stark that we must win.
A strategy that some Democrats decry, but often micro closed.
The phenomenon of trying to elect less solid opponents in the other party's primaries is not necessarily new since, in 2012, the elected Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri had spent more than a million dollars for the campaign of a low profile Republican candidate. Chosen in the primary, he was defeated by McCaskill.
Now, ten years later, in an ultrapolarized election year, the Democratic politician has recognized that the strategy can backfire against his party. Because, according to her, the Republican Party has changed a lot in ten years. We must not count, she said, on the authorities of the party, still devoted to Donald Trump, to disavow some of his candidates who are not very honorable in fact.
Especially if the Republican candidates change their strategy to become more eligible, now that they have to beat the Democrats in the race. The case of Darren Bailey, quoted above, who said he did not know if the 2020 election was decided fairly answered a few days ago that yes, he would now accept the 2022 result, whatever let it happen.
New Hampshire Senate candidate Don Bolduc says he's done his research and now believes the 2020 election wasn't stolen.
Don Bolduc, the Republican candidate for the Senate of New Hampshire, made a 180-degree turn saying he had come to the conclusion that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen, after passing over a year pretending it was. I did a lot of research on this, he said on Fox News. And I've come to the conclusion – and I want to be definitive on this – that the election wasn't stolen.
Two examples out of so many other Republicans who, since being chosen and watching the most recent polls, modify their websites, erasing here and there their radical opposition to abortion or their support for the fallacious theory of the stolen election. Having become less extreme in some cases, they become more credible, or at the very least, less frightening, in the eyes of voters. Becoming, at the same time, more threatening for the Democratic candidates…
Will the voters be fooled on November 8? In any case, the Democrats are crossing their fingers so that their risky bet does not backfire.